Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
're not going to have that doctors or medical personnel to support that. i think we need a health-care revision. there's no question about that. but we need a health care revisions that's going to allow a marketplace to compete to bring down the cost. we need to be able to buy insurance across state lines. that means states have to get out of mandates for insurance. we need tort reforms to bring down the cost and we need accessibility for insurance. we need affordability for insurance. this current law is not going to do that. it will continue to drive up health-care costs and the cost of insurance premiums. >> you have 90 seconds. >> let me tell you why -- why i have dedicated my life to the idea that everyone should have access to decent health care. there's a woman in connecticut who has worked hard all her life and so has her husband. her husband was switching jobs and in between those two jobs, during the week he was unemployed, their son was diagnosed with cancer. when it would to get insurance on her husband's new plan, they would not provide for because he had a pre-existing condition.
chief justice robert is likely to do this term based on his vote in the health-care case? is he now armor plated? what does it mean? >> i do not think it means very much. i am one of those folks who things may be he wrote the opinion he wrote because that is what he thought. it seemed to me the opinion and others will throw stuff at me that was plausible enough on its own terms. there is speculation that now that he has showed he is not a right wing nuts, he can go back to the right wing that most of the time. i doubt he thinks that way. >> any other thoughts to? ? >> we invite questions from those of you here. >> at the price of being a bit predictable, i'm wondering if anyone can comment on whether any of the cases he discussed would offer opportunities for governor romney or president obama to score political points. and what that argument might sound like on these issues. is there any chance that either of them will try to do something like this? >> i think it would be a reference back. because the economy takes all the oxygen out of the election with a little bit of foreign aff
to spend huge sums of money for change around the organization of our health-care system -- i'm not sure of that one did or not but generally speaking, the more important legislation moves fast. that is because a deal has been struck and if we have to wait two or three days, the deal can be broken up by all the interests. that is congress saying we've got the decision and you don't have them, public, one of the reasons i like transparency as ideologic, it represents the shift of power back from congress out to the people who congress is elected by. >> as we get ready to go to questions, let me make one or two very quick points -- in terms of successes on our team, there has been a cultural shift in the house. people in both parties in different places within the institution are having the conversation that they really did not have before. you can tell by my panelists from the senate rules committee about how difficult it is to have this kind of conversation in the other chamber. at least at the house, there seems to be a number of members who are serious about these issues in that their
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)